Additional Resources

We want to SHOW YOU Southeast - one of the most beautiful college campuses you will visit!

Southeast offers a world-class academic experience at an affordable cost. The university’s 200 areas of study emphasize national accreditation, experiential learning and career preparation. In addition to our small class sizes, our faculty and staff genuinely care about your success.

University Foundation

Visitors

The Southeast Missouri University Foundation has announced a $40 million comprehensive campaign, the most ambitious fund-raising effort in the University’s history, to directly support current and future students.

The campaign, named “Honoring Tradition, Inspiring Success,” is focused on increasing scholarships and supporting programs and renovations that benefit students.

Jim Champine gave an update on Action Project #3 Strengthening Faculty-Based Advising
Phase 1. The team was formed by adding faculty members from each college/school to
the Academic Advising Council membership. The team will be assessing advising and
making recommendations. They will be asking assistance from the department chairs
to answer a survey regarding their department’s advising. Champine will give the steering
committee access to the dropbox that has the Action Project team’s documents and departmental
academic advising surveys that have been returned. Champine met with Julie Grueneberg,
Assistant Registrar, last fall about the timeliness of substitutions and student/faculty
curriculum guides that departments are using for advising. Recommendations will be
brought forward regarding these two items. The Action Project Team is also collecting
aggregate data.

J. Champine was asked to meet with the AQIP Steering Committee by the end of the spring
semester to give an update on the Action Project Team’s specific recommendations.

It was noted that a large number of graduation applications get rejected. The question
was asked if there were any other markers. J. Champine will follow-up. A comment was
made that another thing to look at is the number of hours it takes a student to graduate.
A discussion was held on making sure prerequisites are in the system but ultimately
it is up to the department.

Defining Indicators of Being the University of First Choice Update

Deborah Lo gave an update on Action Project #2 Defining Indicators of Being the University
of First Choice. D. Lo distributed a handout identifying the charge of the Action
Project Team, the motivation behind the charge, and the outcomes from the team. The
outcomes include the development of indicators showing we are a University of First
Choice, stakeholder satisfaction, and increased retention and recruitment of all students,
faculty and staff. The team spoke with Elizabeth Shelton, Debbie Below and Dennis
Holt to gain insight on data that has already been collected. D. Holt agreed to fund
for the satisfaction survey to be administered to all staff. Discussion was held on
retention of faculty and staff. The following comments were made concerning faculty
assessment: look at faculty who withdraw after the interview process, develop a post-interview
process to follow-up with faculty who are interviewed, look at faculty cohort tenure
and promotion application rates versus success, and develop customized questions for
the HERI. The following comments were made concerning staff assessment: define criteria
when staff are most apt to leave – a year may be to short, check on the rate of involuntary
separation before the six-month probation is complete, and include internal moves
when assessing separations in positions. Once the list of indicators is developed,
they should be reviewed by Administrative Council. It is possible this could be reported
by the end of the spring semester. Also, a follow-up report should be given to the
AQIP Steering Committee sometime at the end of April.

Improving Information Distribution and Communication Update

Hamner Hill gave an update on Action Project #1 Improving Information Distribution
and Communication. The Action Project Team is trying to identify a good communication
model. Comments are often heard from faculty and staff that they are not informed
about administration decisions. The team is looking to do a couple case studies, for
example the Career Linkages project, the development of the technology park, and the
development of constructing a new residence hall. Suggestions were made to assess
the communication during the strategic planning process that is currently underway
and look at how the AQIP process was started. A comment was made that some people
may not be using communications that are currently available (e.g., newswire, website).
The AP Team will also be contacting campus experts on communication to gain their
insight. The approach the team is looking at is: how communication works now, how
we want communication to work, and modify theory and practice. A follow-up report
should be given to the AQIP Steering Committee sometime in the future.

Brief Overview of Strategic Plan Forum

Provost Stephens and Dennis Holt updated the steering committee on the Strategic Plan
Forum held on February 18. Over 130 faculty, staff, students and community members
participated. Participants went through a variety of exercises. Some of the main themes
that came out of the forum included more marketing, identifying funding alternatives,
developing an institutional image, improving internal communication, and improving
student services. The Executive Staff and the Board of Regents went through a similar
process in the fall. The Strategic Plan Forum was the first phase in the process to
revise the strategic plan. The Board of Regents asked for the revision of the strategic
plan in the fall of 2007.

Other Business

D. Starrett distributed a handout describing the AQIP Category Improvement Project
that was initiated in December 2007. The goal is to present a revised set of AQIP
category items by the April 2008 Higher Learning Commission Annual Meeting and settle
on a revised set of AQIP categories by July 1, 2008. D. Starrett suggested that the
steering committee should hold off on writing the Systems Portfolio until those categories
are finalized. The writing subcommittee will work with D. Holt to determine what needs
to be done with the schedule.

The next meeting will be held before the end of the semester when the Action Project
Team chairs are ready to report back to the steering committee.